DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the anode and cathode compartments " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sealing surface" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the sealing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the seal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the join" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the anode and cathode compartments " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the sealing surface" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note that while there is no explicit antecedent basis for “the two electrodes” in claims 1 and 9, the earlier recitation of “an anode and a cathode” in these claims provides the implicit antecedent basis for this term since anodes and cathodes are electrodes.
Claims 1 and 9 each recite “comprising or consisting of” as the transitional phrase between the preamble and the body of the claim. Since the transitional phrases are presented in the alternative, the claim language is considered definite. However, since one of the options is “comprising” the entire claim scope is considered to be open to other components/steps beyond those recited in the claim body. See MPEP § 2111.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Werner et al (EP 1 477 584 A2).
Regarding claims 9 and 1, Werner et al teach (see figs. 1-5, paragraphs [0025]-[0032]) an electrolysis cell and a method of making thereof, comprising two metallic half-cells (1, 2) forming the anode and cathode compartments, an anode and a cathode respectively being arranged therein with a separator membrane (5) arranged to separate the electrodes from each other. The two half-cells were separated from one another around their periphery by a gap, wherein the gap forms a sealing surface between the two half-cells. Within the gap, a non-conductive thermoplastic adhesive (paragraphs [0016], [0031]-[0032], and [0041]) is utilized to assist in sealing the gap between the two half-cells.
Regarding claim 2, Werner et al teach (see paragraph [0016]) using a thermal joining process in forming the seal.
Regarding claim 3, Werner et al teach (see paragraph [0027]) making the half-cells from either nickel or titanium.
Regarding claim 4, Werner et al teach (see paragraph [0041]) using a thermoplastic as the plastic.
Regarding claim 5, Werner et al teach (see paragraph [0016]) that PFA (known acronym for perfluoroalkoxy alkane) was among the suitable thermoplastic materials.
Regarding claim 6, Werner et al show (see figs. 3-4) that the seal encloses the ends of the separator membrane (5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner et al (EP 1 477 584 A2) in view of Burney, Jr. et al (US 4,839,012 A).
Werner et al is silent with respect to inlets and outlets provided on the half-cells. However, inlets and outlets would necessarily be required for providing reactants to, and for recovering products from, the electrolysis cell.
Burney, Jr. et al teach (see figs. 1-3 and col. 10, line 56 to col. 11, line 38) providing inlet and outlet nozzles on an electrode pan (i.e. metallic half-cell as claimed) by welding of the nozzles to the metal pan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the welded inlet and outlet nozzles of Burney, Jr. et al with the electrolysis cell of Werner et al for the purpose of providing inlets and outlets to the half-cells of Werner et al. See MPEP § 2143.I.A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794